Yes, I know nothing much about US politics - but the democrats seemingly are aiming for things that we have already here in the UK and know that they work well for us. He's not radical or left wing at all for us,  center perhaps.

Top 10 Reasons Why Bernie Sanders May Actually Become President

I mean it's not really possible to compare, situation is so different. For instance here in the UK religion plays absolutely zero role in elections. No politician will even mention it in a typical election. And nobody would think of saying something like "God save the UK" or whatever it is US presidents say. It's not that there are no Christians here - there are many Christians but are much more kind of relaxed about their faith, and there aren't that many Christian fundamentalists - nobody would think of suggesting that schools should not teach evolution or teach it on equal terms with creationism.

The gun issue is also a non issue here, we already have strong gun control and it makes sense to us. We don't have the idea at all that possessing a gun makes you safer. And the idea that citizens need guns so that they can overthrow the government if necessary, again doesn't have any resonances for us, and we just don't "get it" why you'd want that.

But then Bernie Sanders comes from a rural area where guns are a natural part of life and not much gun crime, I gather, and is neither pro nor against guns - so that's not a big deal for him in this elecction. Mention that just to give an idea of how different the situation is here.

But ideas of universal health care - that makes a lot of sense here. We just have it and it works.

We have issues here also of the Conservatives "running down the National Health Service" but compared to the issues in the US that's just about details of how it works, nobody is suggesting we scrap it, or hardly anyone. For us it is significant, junior doctors on strike because they think their proposed new working conditions long hours without overtime pay on Saturdays I think is part of it - will have an adverse affect on patient care. But the hospitals are good. Doctors are good. If you have non urgent operations or procedures you may have a long waiting list in some districts. But that's about it for most people.

Here where I live - it's especially good as I live in a rural area. I can just go in any day to see my doctor, who we know by his first name, as "Doctor Frank", don't have to show anything, just wait until it's my turn, talk to him, not a fixed time appointment - as long as necessary. Some patients may be in there for half an hour, or longer, when you are waiting for your turn. Then he may give blood tests, or some such - all that is completely free - nothing changes hands, no forms to sign or anything. If I need medicine, well here because it is a rural area and not easy to get to shops, then the receptionist gets the medicine together too and hands it over in a bag to me as I leave.

It's a little different in cities, where you have to make an appointment in advance to see a doctor unless it is urgent, and instead of being given your medicine in a bag by the receptionist, the doctor gives you a note instead which you have to take to a chemist in town, still free. But apart from that it is the same thing.

Anything urgent then you get taken to hospital anywhere. And everything that's needed is covered, with no need for insurance.

For us all this seems normal. It seems even rather uncivilized to have a culture where poor people are sometimes refused treatment that they need because they are poor and their health insurance doesn't cover it, especially when you hear of people that run up huge bills they can't afford just to cover health bills for a child or some such. Can't understand why a civilized great nation can have such a system.

Then - we simply don't have any politicians at all saying the things Donald Trump says, especially about Muslims. In the discussion of whether to ban him from the UK not one person in the debate spoke up in support of his views.

We have thirteen Muslim MPs, 8 of them women, who would be banned from the US under his proposals. So in the debate they made quite a bit of political hay about that.

They also talked about other things, one of them mentioned that his financial support of certain projects in Scotland would be dropped, others talked about how his investments are much less than he makes them out to be.

This is mainly back benchers in that debate - but if there was anyone who supported his views here, surely they'd have had an ideal platform for it there. Not one person supported him. They all said in various ways that his views were unacceptable, and the debate was about whether they had gone so far as to count as hate speech in the sense that is used when people are banned from the UK for hate speech.

I don't think anyone here hardly would vote for him. Is just nowhere in our political spectrum. Boris Johnson is quite right wing, may become the next conservative party leader - he also totally repudiates everything Donald Trump says - we have total cross party full spectrum everyone saying that what he says is nonsense and also to us seems like verging on hate speech if not already hate speech.

Then in addition to that, we don't really have climate sceptics here - not running for political positions. You meet people who are sometimes, rarely. But nobody has that as a platform. All the parties are agreed on the importance of doing something about climate change. The conservative party is criticized because their actions don't seem to match their aspirations, e.g. canceling a carbon capture storage research scheme, and reducing subsidies for solar power, etc etc. They have cut back on many initiatives that the more left wing Labour party put in place. But still they "talk the talk" and say they are doing what they can to stop climate change, and that this is what they see as the best way to do it in their vision.

So - of all the US candidates, Bernie Sanders is the one who is most vocal about climate change. And the Republicans, nearly all, are climate skeptics. Here I'm pretty sure an avowed climate skeptic would find it hard to get votes at all in the general election. So that's another big difference. Hard to say for sure as I don't think we have anyone who was elected as an MP on a climate skeptic platform (do correct me if I'm wrong here anyone).

For me, as I think climate change is one of the major challenges of our generation - then I'm rooting for Bernie Sanders. While Hilary Clinton - at least she supports it, but not in such a whole hearted way as he does, if I understand right.

But for just about everyone I think his views on climate change also would be seen as fairly middle of the road. As with many of the other things. I really haven't listened to him that much, and most here have probably listened to him even less, I'm kind of interested more than many because I have a fair number of US friends, but I think that's the general perception, without knowing much about the man and his politics, that (amongst those who follow the presidential campaign - of course it isn't nearly so big here as in the US), he is kind of  middle of the road suggesting policies that would be totally unremarkable here but for some reason are seen as radical in the US. And I see most of the other answers here are saying the same thing which helps confirm that impression.